W91238-14-Q-0003_01_Section_M_Correction.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Project: HEC Programming IDIQ

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirement in section L. Per clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, because this is a small business set aside, the prime contractor is required to do at least 50% of the w ork under task orders to this contract. Section M has been updated to reflect this requirement. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-May-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91238-14-Q-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-May-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-May-2014

CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J ST

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

W91238 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91238-14-Q-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

An IDIQ will be issued to the contractor that offers the best value to the Government, based on a combined assessment of the competing price and technical proposals. The selection of the contractor offering the best value to the Government will be made by the Contracting Officer, with input from a source selection panel consisting of HEC technical evaluators and contracting personnel. The Government is primarily concerned with obtaining superior technical capabilities and subject matter expertise, so technical factors are considered to be significantly more important than price in this evaluation.

1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

In accordance with the FAR, no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

2. BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS.

An IDIQ will be issued to the contractor that offers the best value to the Government, based on a combined assessment of the competing price and technical proposals. The selection of the contractor offering the best value to the Government will be made by the Contracting Officer, with input from a source selection panel consisting of HEC technical evaluators and contracting personnel. The Government is primarily concerned with obtaining superior technical capabilities and subject matter expertise, so technical factors, when combined, are considered to be significantly more important than price in this evaluation.

The Government will conduct technical evaluations of proposals as follows. Each proposal will be evaluated against the evaluation factors established in Section L by the SSEB. The technical (non-pricing) volume of each proposal will be given to the Technical Evaluators for review without identification of the prices or any rank order of prices. Contracting will review the pricing submitted for realism and reasonableness. Submitted labor rates and ODCs will be compared to the other proposals, general industry rates, and rates/prices paid for similar services by the Government in the past. Although technical factors are weighted more heavily than price, the Government is not required to make an award at significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical capabilities. Where competing proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price/cost factors will become the controlling factor.

The Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals after the initial review of both the technical and price proposals. Although none are expected, once the competitive range is established, the Government will engage in Discussions with all offerors included in the competitive range. After receipt of the Offeror’s responses raised during Discussions, responses will be rated again in the same manner as described above for the initial evaluation.

3. BASIS OF AWARD.

Subject to the provisions contained herein, award will be made to one (1) Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, who conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the best value to the government, technical and price factors considered.

4. EVALUATION OF THE PRICE PROPOSALS

Price will be evaluated and considered but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. The government will conduct a price reasonableness analysis; it may also conduct a price realism analysis.

5. EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL.

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on the following evaluation criteria, and will be assigned an adjectival rating as outlined in Table 1 based upon how well their proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation:

A. FACTOR 1 – ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE: The Government will review the Experience of the Offeror, including its subcontractors and Joint Venture partners, on projects submitted in response to Section L, Factor 1.

The contractor’s proposal shows that the firm has significant experience in developing software in the languages specified in the Performance Work Statement and Section L of the contract.

The contractor demonstrates experience developing software for the variety of hydrologic/hydraulic/real-time water management and water resource planning applications.

The contractor’s experience reflects working on projects of varying degrees of size and complexity. It is essential that experience be with the same or very similar types of work, and that it be recent enough to demonstrate that the contractor still has the capabilities to perform this type of work. This includes the design, development, testing, and implementation of large integrated software systems used for performing advanced numerical calculations.

B. FACTOR 2 - KEY PERSONNEL & SUBCONTRACTORS: The Government will review the resumes provided in response to Section L, Factor 2.

Subfactor 2.1 – Key Personnel:

The contractor’s personnel have demonstrated training and/or experience in both hydrologic engineering and software development, and an ability to apply one discipline to the other.

The contractor’s proposal indicates that the personnel who they have specified would be working under this contract are available for a sufficient amount of time to perform work under this contract in a timely manner.

Per clause FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. The contractor’s proposal indicates that meeting this requirement will not adversely affect performance.

Subfactor 2.2 - Subcontractors Subcontractors have the needed knowledge, skills and abilities to successfully perform all of the tasks/projects identified in the Performance Work Statement.

The contractor’s proposal indicates that the subcontractors who they have specified would be working under this contract are available for a sufficient amount of time to perform work under this contract in a timely manner.

Key Personnel and Subcontractors will be evaluated separately, with ratings rolled up into an overall factor rating. To receive a rating of unsatisfactory for elements of either subfactor will result in an overall rating of unsatisfactory for this factor. Because the Government will be entering into a contractual relationship with the prime contractor, the prime’s Key Personnel will be more heavily weighted than Subcontractors, but the rating will take into consideration the amount of work and critical nature of work expected to be performed by the prime/subs.

C. FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH The Government will review the resumes provided in response to Section L, Factor 3.

The contractor’s proposal reflects sufficient technical planning, management control and oversight to perform diverse, large and complex hydrologic, hydraulic, real-time water management and water resource planning software development projects.

The technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of industry standards and best practices needed to successfully execute the task orders under this contract.

D. FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE The Government will review the Past Performance Questionnaires provided in response to Section L, Factor 4.

The contractor’s proposal reflects sufficient successful completion of projects with similar size, scope and content to the work that will be acquired under this IDIQ.

In its evaluation of contractor’s past performance, the Government may use information furnished by the references identified in the contractor’s technical proposal and recent, relevant information available to the Government from other sources, to include Government databases. Contractors will be given the opportunity to comment on any negative past performance information received.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and therefore will be rated naturally which will be acceptable.

The Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

All technical factors are considered equal in importance, and when combined all Technical Factors and Past Performance are significantly more important than price.

Table 1 will be used to rate Factors 1 through 3:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 4 and 5 will be used to rate Factor 4:

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

7. GENERAL TECHNICAL CRITERIA

a. The Government may reject, without evaluation of an offer's Technical and or Price Proposal, if the proposal omits a material element; such as failure to provide documentation in support of part or all of a Technical Proposal, or failure to provide all required prices in the Proposal Schedule, failure to sign the Standard Form 1449, etc.

b. Proposals which fail to follow the formatting requirements of this Solicitation may be considered unacceptable.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)